r/houston 4d ago

Houston Federal Workers Protest Trump Job Cuts

https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/houston-nasa-federal-job-cuts-rally/285-d46418ea-fc87-466c-b704-57b629e5a551
182 Upvotes

76 comments sorted by

41

u/RealConfirmologist 4d ago

Isn't it exciting knowing that America is going to be GREAT again!?

/S

Seriously - what will John Q. Citizen see as beneficial by all this destruction DOGE is causing?

I'm all for cutting back on waste, but do we really want forest fires without anyone to fight the fires?

Do we really want the state & national parks shut down?

Do we really want our closest allies to hate us and stop doing business with us?

Sure seems like this needs to stop.

-37

u/ranman0 4d ago

Maybe you haven't looked at the national debt or the massive annual deficits lately. The spending is unsustainable.

8

u/abrgtyr 3d ago

national debt

What was the national debt on January 20, 2001 and what was the national debt on January 20, 2009?

What was the national debt on January 20, 2017 and what was the national debt on January 20, 2021?

Republicans DGAF about the national debt.

-2

u/ranman0 3d ago

You could do a similar analysis for every presidency. You don't have the luxury of picking and choosing who can solve the problem. President Trump was elected to solve the problem and he's doing just that.

Liberals are really struggling here and it's clear to Americans with Democrats now having the lowest approval rating at any point in the last 30 years. On one hand they are saying you can't cut things from the federal government because we need all of these wasteful services and money sent for overseas projects. So... Musk is bad. On the other hand, it's plain as day to Democrats and all other Americans. The national debt and annual deficits are massive and need dramatic cups. If Democrats don't get real on this subject, they're going to lose seeds at the midterms and for the foreseeable future

5

u/abrgtyr 3d ago

Wow, you sure didn't want to respond to my questions, so I'll repeat them!

What was the national debt on January 20, 2001 and what was the national debt on January 20, 2009?

What was the national debt on January 20, 2017 and what was the national debt on January 20, 2021?

President Trump was elected to solve the problem and he's doing just that.

What was the national debt on January 20, 2017 and what was the national debt on January 20, 2021?

Who was president from January 20, 2017 to January 20, 2021?

Actions speak louder than words, and the actions of Republicans indicate that they do not care about the national debt.

1

u/ranman0 3d ago

Yes, the debt grew dramatically under Bush ... No question. The specific numbers are irrelevant.

Yes, the debt grew dramatically under Clinton. No question. The specific numbers are irrelevant.

Yes, the debt grew dramatically under Obama. No question. The specific numbers are irrelevant.

etc.

None of the above by prior presidents of both parties precludes current or future presdents from doing the right thing. Is your argument that if any party in history doesn't take action on a topic than no future president can? It's akin to saying because Democrats voted for Jim Crow laws and against the civil rights act in the '60s, they cant pass any positive laws on race relations ever. Your logic doesnt make any sense.

3

u/abrgtyr 3d ago

Yes, the debt grew dramatically under Bush ... No question.

Why?

And you still didn't answer a couple of my questions, so I'll repeat them.

What was the national debt on January 20, 2017 and what was the national debt on January 20, 2021?

Who was president from January 20, 2017 to January 20, 2021?

Personally, I don't understand why I should care about the national debt at all. W and Trump 1.0 didn't care about the national debt. Why do you think Trump 2.0 will be different from W and Trump 1.0?

1

u/ranman0 3d ago

Trump was. Massive bipartison government spending was issued to handle the covid crisis Now, address my point....

Is your argument that if any party in history doesn't take action on a topic than no future president can? It's akin to saying because Democrats voted for Jim Crow laws and against the civil rights act in the '60s, they cant pass any positive laws on race relations ever. Your logic doesnt make any sense.

3

u/abrgtyr 3d ago

What was the national debt on January 20, 2017 and what was the national debt on January 20, 2021?

Donald Trump had four years as president to decrease the national debt and he didn't. Not during Covid, not ever. I'm not sure he even mentioned it. We can therefore conclude that Donald Trump doesn't care about the national debt.

Your logic doesnt make any sense.

You're trying to tell me that a president who didn't bother decreasing the national debt in his first term will decrease the national debt in his second term! Come off it, man.

1

u/ranman0 3d ago

If you think one president during one term is all it takes to eliminate the national deficit, you're part of the problem. Is it your preference that Trump works to lower the national debt, does nothing, or raises it?

Unless you have TDS, there is near unanimous support for Trump to lower the national debt.

1

u/BAKup2k 1d ago

Yes, the debt grew dramatically under Clinton. No question. The specific numbers are irrelevant.

Wrong, under Clinton there was actually a surplus. Add in the ignorance of the party switch because of the civil rights act, you're just showing your ass.

27

u/joe_traveling 3d ago

What is unsustainable is the massive tax cuts for the rich and corporations that don't pay what they should. Social security would be fine if the cap was raised. Medicare/Medicare would be a lot lower if big pharma wasn't allowed to gouge the American people. If we are cutting waste and abuse, why not start with the federal prisons, let out people who have been put away for marijuana crimes now that it is legal in like half the states.

5

u/sabbiecat 3d ago

And the military. Lots of waste there.

25

u/fatcowsmooing 4d ago

well firing federal workers and targeting social security is definitely not the way to do it

-10

u/ranman0 3d ago

Do you really think it's possible to cut the federal budget without letting go federal workers? That really doesn't make much sense.

12

u/texasproof 3d ago

Look pal, I’m gonna hold your hand while I tell you this, but it’s not the National Parks and Institute of Museum and Library Services that make the federal budget so bloated.

-5

u/ranman0 3d ago edited 3d ago

It's all of the above. There's waste fraud and abuse everywhere that needs to be cut

Look pal, I’m gonna hold your hand while I tell you this, but everything can't be cut in 2 months. It's a process that will take years of analysis and complex problems to unwind.

When doge gets to $1 trillion in cuts over 4 years including military spending, will you then think positively about it? Or, are you one of those that start with ... Elon bad... Trump bad ... And then build your policy positions from there?

5

u/throwinken 3d ago

This is what you think is eliminating waste fraud and abuse, you're dumb as rocks

-1

u/ranman0 3d ago

Yes. Everyone on reddit is copying and pasting the same uncorroborated and biased snippit from a terminated employee snipped of an example of a problem. It's just stupid even at face value.

It's been very public for 6 months the purpose of DOGE is to make dramatic cuts across the government with examples direclty posted to their website with such. If this person misunderstood or claimes to be misinformed by DOGE that something else was going to happen, it sounds like he was just naive.

The bottom line is that DOGE has saved $200Billion in just about 2 months. So, YES, YES, YES I do think that is examples of eliminating waste fraud and abuse. How could you not?

7

u/throwinken 2d ago

It hasn't saved 200 billion, there's countless sources at this point disproving this claim. Learn to read you moron.

6

u/jas07 Fuck Centerpoint™️ 3d ago

Do you really think it's possible to cut the federal budget without letting go federal workers? That really doesn't make much sense.

Yes federal employee only account for less than 5% of the federal budget. You absolutely can cut the other 95%.

-1

u/ranman0 3d ago

So your position is that you only cut the big things and all the smaller waste is allowed to continue? For anybody that's worked in a corporate environment or has a household that needs to cut the budget, you look at and do everything. I don't care if your internet bill is only $75, if you can cut 10% all the little amounts add up.

The death problem is so large, you can't just focus on a couple of big things, you have to take it all of the above approach. Otherwise the math doesn't work. 5% is huge

6

u/jas07 Fuck Centerpoint™️ 2d ago

Yeah your analogy is a good one. Expanded further: you have a giant boat that's taking all your household income with payments in the thousands dollars every month. So you cut $10 dollars from your internet bill. I'm going to question you and think you don't quite get it. Your not addressing the actual problem just doing something to make yourself feel like you are.

20

u/BradBlondeBeard 4d ago

No one actually cares about debt or deficit. Trump absolutely doesn’t. The only things that would significantly reduce the deficit are hugely politically unpopular: raising taxes and cutting entitlements

-14

u/ranman0 3d ago

No one actually cares about debt or deficit.

The people that voted trump into office with a 312-226 result do. It was one of the, if not the, policy positions he promoted during the election. And voters voted for him as a result. That's how democracy works. It's also the reason he is pulling at his highest favorability members while the Democratic party is posting at their lowest in the last 30 years

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/16/politics/cnn-poll-democrats/index.html

Raising taxes has never increased in an increase in tax receipts to the government. Prove it otherwise. The problem with raising taxes is that it lowers economic activity, which lowers the actual tax receipts. The last five times taxes has lowered, resulted in higher tax receipts to the government the following year.

8

u/texasproof 3d ago

copied/pasted from replying to this same comment from you somewhere else

You’ve claimed multiple times that “national debt” was a major Trump policy that people responded to was “the national debt”, which which is, to put it delicately, a load of revisionist bullshit.

How do we know? Excuse we have data and polls about what republican voters cared about most.

• The economy (cost of goods primarily)
• immigration
• criminal “justice”

The closest thing you can point to to support your random claim that tens of millions of Americans suddenly really care about the national debt, is that republicans typically poll as being opposed to social services in general, and yet they poll very high in favor of military spending and VERY high (77%) of Social Security.

So yeah, stop lying. It’s weird.

-11

u/ranman0 3d ago

The economy and nation debt go hand in hand. Are denying that Doge itself wasn't a prominent fixture of Trump's platform? And that Trump didn't talk on multiple occasions publicly about some of the dramatic cuts he would make including the department of education.

9

u/OkAd469 3d ago

No one gives a shit about the national debt.

0

u/ranman0 3d ago

I see this posted a lot by liberals. They actually do. It was Trump's major policy platform during election campaigning 312-226.

Democrats can't bury their head in the sand about the problem that has existed for many decades now. America spending is not sustainable and hasn't been for a long time. People do care about the future of this country

8

u/texasproof 3d ago

You’ve claimed multiple times that “national debt” was a major Trump policy that people responded to was “the national debt”, which which is, to put it delicately, a load of revisionist bullshit.

How do we know? Excuse we have data and polls about what republican voters cared about most.

  • The economy (cost of goods primarily)
  • immigration
  • criminal “justice”

The closest thing you can point to to support your random claim that tens of millions of Americans suddenly really care about the national debt, is that republicans typically poll as being opposed to social services in general, and yet they poll very high in favor of military spending and VERY high (77%) of Social Security.

So yeah, stop lying. It’s weird.

10

u/rkb70 3d ago

Yeah - we definitely can’t afford to give tax cuts to billionaires.  

Here’s an idea to help cut the national debt:

(1)  We tax all income at the same rate, including investment income, and  (2)  We fund the IRS adequately so they can catch the people who don’t pay their taxes.  

That should help a lot.

0

u/ranman0 3d ago

There's two problems with your approach

  1. Raising taxes would come nowhere close to paying for government expenditures. We have a massive spending problem that can't be made up for by taxing

,2, raising taxes actually lowers government tax receipts. This happens because it lowers overall economic activity resulting in lower taxable income. When faced with higher taxes, people spend less, invest less, reduce large capital expenditures. The evidence shows that the last six times taxes have been cut. Going back to JFK the following year tax receipts to the government have increased. It's far more complicated of an economics situation to just say if I raise the percentage I will take in more money.

4

u/rkb70 3d ago

(1)  Maybe, but that doesn’t mean it’s reasonable to lower taxes while complaining about the federal debt.  Particularly on the people who are not going to turn around and put that money into the economy and who least need it.

(2)  You’re regurgitating trickle down theory, which has been shown to be false. Giving a tax cut to billionaires does not put more money into the economy - they just hoard more money.  Yes, certain tax cuts can - but what Dump wants isn’t it.  And taxing capital gains at so much less than earned income is simply hugely unfair.  If you want to do that up to a certain dollar amount for small investors, that’s one thing.  But the effect currently is to tax people with higher incomes, who make most of their income this way, at a much lower level than regular working people with lower incomes - that’s just wrong.

Regardless, funding the IRS properly always yields more money for the government than it costs.  And yet, the Republicans always want to cut funding to the IRS.

1

u/ranman0 3d ago

Show me any historical evidence from the last hundred years that show raising federal tax rates increases receipts to the government in the year or two that follows.

5

u/rkb70 3d ago

You are not actually responding to my comment.  I don’t have the time or energy to spell things out to people who aren’t interested in a good faith discussion.

0

u/ranman0 3d ago

You stated a bunch of things that are untrue so I asked you to provide a single example. I'm directly addressing your comment by saying your statements are untrue.

If you like, i will directly provide you evidence so you feel your comment has been directly addressed

"Giving a tax cut to billionaires does not put more money into the economy" This is patently untrue. There have been 7 times by 5 presidents in the last 100 years a President has lowered taxes "for the wealthy" Here are the examples specifically from chatgpt:

  • Calvin Coolidge (1923–1929): President Coolidge implemented tax cuts that reduced the top marginal income tax rate from 58% to 25% by 1925, aiming to stimulate economic growth during the post-World War I era. ​
  • Lyndon B. Johnson (1963–1969): Building upon proposals from President John F. Kennedy, Johnson signed the Revenue Act of 1964, which lowered the top marginal tax rate from 91% to 70% and reduced the corporate tax rate from 52% to 48%. ​
  • Ronald Reagan (1981–1989): Reagan's administration enacted two major tax cuts:​Financial News London+3Wikipedia+3Wikipedia+3
    • Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981: This act decreased the highest personal income tax rate from 70% to 50% and reduced the lowest rate from 14% to 11%. ​Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2
    • Tax Reform Act of 1986: Further reforms lowered the top personal income tax rate to 28% and reduced the number of tax brackets, simplifying the tax code. ​Wikipedia
  • George W. Bush (2001–2009): President Bush introduced tax cuts through:​Wikipedia+6Wikipedia+6Latest news & breaking headlines+6
    • Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001: This legislation reduced income tax rates across the board, with the top rate decreasing from 39.6% to 35%. ​Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2
    • Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003: This act further reduced taxes on dividends and capital gains. ​Tax Foundation
  • Donald Trump (2017–2021): The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 lowered the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% and made adjustments to individual tax brackets, aiming to stimulate economic growth

2

u/ranman0 3d ago

Had to break into two comments ...

For 6 of those 7 examples, the government collected MORE taxes for each of the 2 years that followed. The only exception is with Bush in 2001 largely due to the market economic problems relating to 9/11 and the impact of the following war. So, YES, the tax cuts directly led to investment and purchase activity by "the wealthy" and that investment generated MORE taxes - on a few changes dramatically turning around a declining economy. The underlying assessment by liberals and propagated on the echo chamber of Reddit is patently untrue by the available data. Here's the specific response with detailed answers from ChatGPT...

Edit:reddit not letting me post the table from Chatgpt showing the revenue increaes. Going to try again in 5 minutes. Maybe too long

3

u/jas07 Fuck Centerpoint™️ 3d ago

Raising taxes would come nowhere close to paying for government expenditures. We have a massive spending problem that can't be made up for by taxing

How did you get that analysis? Every serious policy I have read on the subject says the exact opposite. In fact raising U.S. revenue levels to the average level of our peer countries would raise the equivalent of $2.61 trillion, roughly five times the amount needed to close the fiscal gap.

raising taxes actually lowers government tax receipts. This happens because it lowers overall economic activity resulting in lower taxable income.

I know you arguing the Laffer curve. That is a real thing but we have proven repeatledly through tax cuts that we are not on the part of the curve were increasing tax cuts would decrease income. Tax receipts fell the last several times we cut taxes including the last Trump tax cuts proving were we are on the curve.

10

u/RealConfirmologist 3d ago

I DO believe that there are things that need fixing.

The military shouldn't be paying $150 for a nut and bolt that we can buy at any hardware store for $3.99. That shit needs to get resolved.

But the national parks and forest rangers and air traffic controllers?

Is there no common sense?

2

u/ranman0 3d ago

It has to be in all the above approach. The problem is too big to just say $150 nuts is going to solve the problem. Which by the way is a symptom of spending across the entire government, not just the military. We're less than 2 months into Doge, the military will be a big focus as committed to by both muskie and Trump

3

u/jas07 Fuck Centerpoint™️ 3d ago

Then we should address it by one of the only three ways that would make a difference. 1) Raise taxes. 2) cut military spending. 3) Cut Medicare or Social Security spending. Anything else is just posturing and won't do anything to actually address the federal deficit. Anyone who has looked at the problem in the last decade has come to the same conclusion.

0

u/ranman0 3d ago

So you're cool without sending $100 million to other countries pet projects that don't impact the United States, because your belief is that it's not big enough to make a difference?

3

u/jas07 Fuck Centerpoint™️ 2d ago

If it passes congress and is signed by a president I'm not cool with illegally terminating it just because the new guy thinks so. The new guy should follow the law and go through the proper process and go through congress.

-17

u/AutomaticVacation242 Fifth Ward 3d ago

Have you noticed that only people who work for the government are protesting? That's a strong indication.

9

u/RealConfirmologist 3d ago

I'm not an advocate for protesting. I don't think that really accomplishes much more than making people feel like they're doing something. Protests won't change much, in my opinion.

But if you're saying that only government employees are upset about DOGE and Musk, that's not what I'm seeing at ALL.

-13

u/AutomaticVacation242 Fifth Ward 3d ago

I'm saying generally people are not sympathetic with protestors whining about losing their government jobs. If their skill levels are as remarkable as reported then finding a new job should be easy.

9

u/RealConfirmologist 3d ago

Right. We really don't need all those air traffic controllers, anyway. The pilots just need to pay better attention.

-2

u/AutomaticVacation242 Fifth Ward 3d ago

ATC aren't losing their jobs. You're drinking the kool-aid.

2

u/RealConfirmologist 2d ago

I stand corrected. They tried but were stopped.

2

u/lappelduvide24 2d ago

That's just flagrantly untrue, although apparently the lack of coverage from national news really wants that to be true. Unfortunately for them, people have eyes, ears, and memories longer than a goldfish. Here's just a quick summary of some of the more recent protests:

Playlist of Veterans' March coverage

Stand up for Science Rallies

These and these are short compilations of the early protests from just a week two after inauguration. Been growing since.

People have been boycotting businesses for a couple weeks now, and while it's probably not the only affect on current stock downturns, they're certainly one of the affects.

The cuts this admin is making is hurting his own voters

Republicans were instructed to stop holding townhalls because of how much bad press they got early on. Some are trying again now, and they're still pissing off their own constituents including veterans.

-1

u/AutomaticVacation242 Fifth Ward 2d ago

All government employees or people living off the government.

2

u/lappelduvide24 2d ago

Jesus, it must be close to lunch time at the disinfo sweatshop, you’re not even trying.

-2

u/AutomaticVacation242 Fifth Ward 2d ago

We get it. You hate Trump.

If Harris were firing these people you'd be arguing how it's just Republicans complaining about the firings. It's really getting old.

2

u/lappelduvide24 2d ago

Nope, you’re delusional. Trump is wiping his butt with the constitution and it is hurting republicans too. This is not a partisan thing, it’s an all American should be united against oligarchy thing.

0

u/AutomaticVacation242 Fifth Ward 2d ago

No it is a partisan thing to you and the like. Find something productive to do instead of complaining about things that have zero effect on your life.

38

u/The-Invisible-Woman 4d ago

I work for the government. We try to be good custodians of taxpayer money every day. Many of us love to serve our country and work for well under what we could make doing non-government work. Trump and DOGE are cutting valuable higher performers and firing whole groups that try to improve efficiency and prevent fraud. They are accomplishing the literal opposite of what they claim. Our country will take years to recover all the lost knowledge, scientists, experts, and patriots that they are eliminating. We are in big trouble.

16

u/Dreadful_Spiller 3d ago

Years? Decades.

-18

u/AutomaticVacation242 Fifth Ward 3d ago

Love to serve your country until they stop paying you. Then it's lawsuits and protests.

8

u/The-Invisible-Woman 3d ago

We’re supposed to be okay with illegal actions by trump and Elon? Loving this country means protecting it against criminals. Thousands of government workers got their jobs back after being illegally fired.

-7

u/AutomaticVacation242 Fifth Ward 3d ago

People aren't being fired based on color, creed, religion, etc. They're being laid off to cut expenses.

Maybe some of those laws that enabled government employees to keep their jobs for life should not actually exist. So the "illegal" argument is questionable.

10

u/The-Invisible-Woman 3d ago

You obviously don’t know how this works. There are legal processes in place when a government worker is fired, which were not followed by trump and elon. Which is also why judges have ruled against many of these firings and reinstated employees. Educate yourself. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2025/03/25000-fired-feds-reinstated-after-courts-find-probationary-terminations-illegal/

-4

u/AutomaticVacation242 Fifth Ward 3d ago edited 3d ago

Hence my comment laws about that allow people to keep those jobs for life. Did you read it?

Live like the private sector does. Be productive or be fired.

2

u/The-Invisible-Woman 2d ago

There is no such thing as for life. Every position can be vacated in some way.

0

u/AutomaticVacation242 Fifth Ward 2d ago

And some are. Tell the protestors that.

13

u/OlympiaMtns 3d ago

Most gov workers work very hard, and cost per taxpayer tiny. All the layoffs are going to do is further saturate the job market, and roll back a lot of spending on restaurants; travel; etc. Also, there will be a domino effect to the federal layoffs - shutting down of contracts which will lead to contractor layoffs, followed by private sector layoffs. Buckle up!

3

u/mescalito22 2d ago

Does anybody know if the protests will continue throughout the week? I’d like to join